Sale of goods act

Miseryschild

I personally would be really annoyed if i'd paid alot for a coat and 3 months down the line it started to look knackered. I've got a coat i've worn pretty much every day for atleast 8 months and only now is it starting to look a bit 'worn'.

Unfortunatly the laws there to protect companies more than consumers imho.

~MC

uktim29

Miseryschild wrote: »

Unfortunatly the laws there to protect companies more than consumers imho.

What so a law that allows you to have it repaired at no cost isn't good enough?

baldelectrician

The sale of goods act was amended in 2002 with
[SIZE=+1]The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002[/SIZE]

In the first 6 months the obligation is on the seller to prove the goods were sold and were satisfactory then.

Part 5A

pinkshoes

Corporate-eye, you are entitled to have it repaired, so I would take them up on this offer. You have worn it for 3 months, after all.

An expensive coat doesn't mean it's a good one. There's only so much a coat costs to make, and after that amount you're paying for the brand.

coupon_king_2

Would you be entitled to a replacement coat for the period it was away being repaired if you took this option ?

big_mistake

can anyone tell me where i am likely to stand on this.

had a flood caused by useless plumber who said couldnt get parts to repair toilet cistern and therefore tried to modify which over night flooded downstairs. insurance co are sueing on our behalf but after having to have pumps, drying fans and waiting for house to dry, loosing all florring etc took the - then thought - responsible decision : if this happened downstairs imagine what would happen if it had been upstairs, so lets replace bathrooms with new before the insurance co begin rebuilding downstairs. Kind of like taking the initiative to protect upstairs and also what would go in new downstairs if you follow.

however the bathroom co (sole tradrer trading as ...) was supposed to be KBSA reg and had all certs etc, paper work with logo on but was (now found out) using another co identity.

anyway we ordered specific items (manufacturer product numbers) on the contract and when they turned up all the sealed boxes went in garage while they wripped out 3 bathrooms. we moved out to assit them and the appointed insurance drying specilaists leaving bathroom co to get on with it.When we came back theyd fitted nothing like we ordered and we complained but they said if they removed and left we would have to wait bathroomless until it could be sorted OR let them at least fit what was there so we could have bathrooms. Anyway before we could make any headway to even begin resolving they switched on water and flooded house destroying what had just been replaced downstairs. walked off the job but called the sole trader who turned up and demanded payment regardless of what had just taken place.

we said noway, he then threatened violence, we called police to get incident logged, spoke to solicitor to cover ourselves for refusing to pay balance.

since then we have had to have report after report done by independant witness surveyor and now this guy has a copy he is refusing to reply to letters from solicitor who has now said that as no responses (paper trial) have no choice but to issue proceeding paperwork etc.

i have now been 2 yrs without bathrooms and house is still trashed, Gas Bd had to disconnect upstairs water and the only toilet we have fills up then overflows with sewage (if using flush) so we have to flush manually with bucket.

i am going mad with this, but what i need to know does anyone have any expereince of whether this guy can wriggle out of this in court even tho we have expert, trading standards and building inspector reports plus KBSA confimed in writing that he is not the person on their register he has copied their stuff (logo/certs etc etc) and used someoneelses identity.

i am worried that he will find a way to get himself off the hook and we will then have a massive legal bill and be forced to pay him damages and for items not ordered, wrong tiles on wall, dodgy electrics, sewage problems and no water upstairs etc etc.................

sorry this is long and drawn out, but now we are about to go to court stage after 2 yrs of trying to 'sort it all out' but have been ignored since reports were sent to him, i need to find the confidence we will win. so far the to put it all right is going to cost £30k as we are talking sewage pipes, water pipes floating in walls (not connected hence water coming out of walls) - I could go on.

help me i am so scared as he may well have done this before and know how to get off.

dmg24

big mistake,

You would be best to start your own thread, as this thread is about something completely different.

superscaper

baldelectrician wrote: »

The sale of goods act was amended in 2002 with
[SIZE=+1]The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002[/SIZE]

In the first 6 months the obligation is on the seller to prove the goods were sold and were satisfactory then.

Part 5A

I don't think that changes anything. The retailer aren't disputing there's a fault so they don't have any obligation to prove anything since it's a moot point. They've offered a repair. That's all they're obligated to do at this stage which has already moved past the point of establishing if there is an inherent fault (unless it reaches court but then that'd have to be after an unsatisfactory repair).

baldelectrician

bigmistake

HAve you tried to find out who his insurers are?

You could claim against them. He should have liability insurance.

corporate-eye

UKTim29 - sorry if I've somehow upset you or something (!?), as Taxiphil pointed out I was just looking for some friendly advice. Your post was a bit pointless in that respect but if you've nothing better to do with your time....

When I said I'd like to "go the small claims route" I obviously meant 'if possible'.

Anyway, I think anyone who had dealt with the staff at this store would have had a similar reaction- anger. I was told that it was their policy not to issue refunds under any circumstances which I think is a bit outrageous.

The reason I declined a repair is simple and logical -the last coat I bought for less than half the price lasted me 5 years without so much as a loose stitch. When I spend that much on a coat I expect it to be well made & good quality.

If they had repaired it they would have put a patch on it- they wouldnt have relined it. This would make it look ugly. And if 5% of the stitching has come undone in three months, how much more will come undone in the next year or so? Do I keep taking it back for more restitching?

I have treated the coat so well in the limited time that I've had it. I don't get clothes that cost this much usually and when I got the coat and parted with my cash I resolved to take extra special care of it - which I did.

I don't understand the argument put forward by the shop that they sold 40 coats and mine was the only one that was falling to bits. Apprentice at the factory? Bad batch of cotton? There are so many reasons that my coat in particular might be inherently rubbish but not all the others. Maybe all the others are falling to bits too, but no one else has bothered to complain?

Surely it can't be right that something that I would expect to last 5 years has lasted three months and all they are offering me is a patch up job.

I have been stitched up!